A SOLUTION TO THE IRAQ WAR.
Greetings Readers, and as always, God Bless.
I have told a few people that this blog is up, and already people have asked me “Ok Mr. Correct Views, you are President of The Grand US of A….how do you handle Iraq?”
Plans to address that were on the table, after all this is the major issue of our time, still the readership is so very small that until it grows in this regard it seemed like a waste and that perhaps it was better to wait a bit until The Correct Views has grown some. After careful debate I have decided that there is no law saying that it can not be reposted yet (Congress will make one perhaps, so check before you take my word for it), so why not just address it. Fine, but there had better be some comments on it, I am playing my ace card a bit early….
but every deck has four aces, six if you play the jokers right.
Ok – Iraq. Let us forget before we begin “This war was right” and “This war was utter rubbish” and pretend that Mr. Samuel Di Gangi was elected today - as is- into the house of the blue dress and that now Iraq was up to “Mr. Correct Views” as I was called.
First of all, Iraq is split in threes: Kurds, Sunni, and Shiite. NO QUESTIONS ASKED.
Secondly, we take every healthy solider and place an equal (?) number in all three countries. If the solider is supposed to be sent home, he will be offered double pay for staying. If the solider chooses to not stay and is up to go home, he goes home. Again, NO QUESTIONS ASKED.
Point three would address the time table, and this is where I must confess that I am not solid on this, for I am not a general, so I do not pretend to be one. I would however surround myself with the best, brightest, most diverse minds in modern warfare and military know how (not just a handful of “yes-men”) to guide me in that decision. That is the best that I can say.
The fourth issue would involve civil war because I am not going to assume as President that they will all like the new sandbox and play nicely with one another. The troops are split into all three counties according to the layout of above mentioned military minds and myself, and then we begin “testing”. It would not be called “testing”, but whatever fancy title my spinsters gave to it, in the end it would boil down to testing. Issue four is handled as follows: Each country would have all of the forces that the USA and whatever poor allies we still have can offer, and they MUST build a force of police and military for themselves, and they must do it YESTERDAY! If they are building their forces, our help stays and helps. If on the other hand, a country falls into violence and chaos, then we will in fact LEAVE. Yes, we will LEAVE THEM because the people are NOT able or willing to police and defend themselves, they are not showing signs of unity, and we are not their country. We leave, for how often have we all heard the mantra that most of the Muslim faith is peaceful and able? Fine, that country will either unite and be so able or they can deal with the lack of unity. The innocents will have to rise up and not be bullied by the government that they elect. If they squander our help, they will loose it. What more can we give them?
To the government that did build, again, we help them defend any attacks from the other two, but not forever. Much of this will do with size and population.
Five is terrible. Five is why a lot of people may leave nasty messages for me in The Correct Views comment section because in the event that say the new Sunni country builds to such a degree that they are attacking the Kurds, the Shiite, and threatening the USA and Israel, then we act fast, with great force, and we leave. Gone.
Then we call the Air Force because the aggressor country must be attacking from somewhere. Let’s assume that the aggressive country had a handful of long or semi-long range weapons that we have picked up on satellite images, but other than that it seemed to be centered on the border of the people they are attacking with more conventional short range weapons. As President, I would order our jets to level the entire area that is attacking its neighbor. Any site that had larger weapons would have nothing but a pile of ash when the attack was done, not a missile tower any longer. I would order the whole section blasted to the point to where the other countries could then defend themselves proper from a future attack and they would be able to do it because of us.
Now…
All I ask is that if you, the faithful reader decide to send angry comments, I ask that you lay out where The Correct View is wrong. (or just rip me a new one, I don’t mind really).
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Sunday, March 11, 2007
Scooter Libby, Pardongate 2?
Greetings and Blessings to You The Reader,
The buzz pertaining to the second guessing game of George W. Bush in regards to the Scooter Libby pardoning question is growing in decibals daily. Was Mrs. P covert? Did Scooter really have that bad of a memory, is that possible?
The Correct View here seems to point to what we shall for the sake of argument address as "the conscience issue", or CU. Basically it is this: does your conscience or "gut" tell you the faithful reader that a) said reader or ANYONE that said reader knows, if on the stand with the same set of memory blank spots in a case even half of this important, would the averege person in America get convicted or not, and b) do the original charges seem like a ligitement charge or an attack upon the already lackluster view of The Bush Administration?
Let us look at "a)", this is the easy part, is it not? After all there is no way, under even the most drug induced influence, even with a magic lamp and a Genni full of wishes, NO WAY that anyone reading this can assume that the averege man would be found anything but 100% guilty. The prisons are full of people who are only half as guilty sounding as Scooter Libby is.
Now, for question "b)", well - things get foggier here. To start with, the question has not really been addressed as to how the charges went from outing a covert agent to what they have since morphed into. Then add to that the fact that it is not even noted as certain that the agent was covert at all, and if it was then how did Dick Chenney not also get called to the stand?
Now that we have worded ourselves into a terrible mess at this point, let us go back to point one and remember the fate of the poor, averege man. To prison with the averege should mean to prison for rich attourneys as well, to this we shall concede. However...
If we are in fact throwing away the key on Mr. Libby and Mr. Bush decides to pardon him, where are we left then? Yes, cries of "cronnieism" could not be scoffed at, for such a move would bolster such attacks, but here is another question to ponder - are we then ready to also condemn and also use our "cronnieism" mantra towards Mr. William Jefferson Clinton who while leaving office pardoned some of the most offensive individuals within the prison system himself? Drugs Lords, Drug Runners, Tax Cheats, and listen - The Correct View is not saying that the drug laws are not too strict or that the IRS is honest - NEVER! Rather, The Correct View is asking why were not very many Democrats were up in arms with Mr. Libby when he along with Mr. Clinton was part of a deal to pardon Marc Rich, a deal that went down with a handshake, a wink, and a crisp $100,000 bill?
Here is The Correct View: what one administration is ok with, future administrations will be ok with. Ford pardoned Nixon in a move that many still question. Ever since then Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bill Clinton have made some rather questionable moves in terms of who they chose to pardon. After such a deal, the kingdom (and with all this Bush and Clinton talk, and with Mrs. Clinton looming at the White House door like a horrible gargoyle from a Vincient Price movie is what we have - A KINGDOM) always reeks of money, brandy, and yes, cronnieism. What is needed is not a decision to pardon Scooter Libby, but a decision to not allow every administration to worsen the office that they leave behind by uppeing the ante with every possible move.
The buzz pertaining to the second guessing game of George W. Bush in regards to the Scooter Libby pardoning question is growing in decibals daily. Was Mrs. P covert? Did Scooter really have that bad of a memory, is that possible?
The Correct View here seems to point to what we shall for the sake of argument address as "the conscience issue", or CU. Basically it is this: does your conscience or "gut" tell you the faithful reader that a) said reader or ANYONE that said reader knows, if on the stand with the same set of memory blank spots in a case even half of this important, would the averege person in America get convicted or not, and b) do the original charges seem like a ligitement charge or an attack upon the already lackluster view of The Bush Administration?
Let us look at "a)", this is the easy part, is it not? After all there is no way, under even the most drug induced influence, even with a magic lamp and a Genni full of wishes, NO WAY that anyone reading this can assume that the averege man would be found anything but 100% guilty. The prisons are full of people who are only half as guilty sounding as Scooter Libby is.
Now, for question "b)", well - things get foggier here. To start with, the question has not really been addressed as to how the charges went from outing a covert agent to what they have since morphed into. Then add to that the fact that it is not even noted as certain that the agent was covert at all, and if it was then how did Dick Chenney not also get called to the stand?
Now that we have worded ourselves into a terrible mess at this point, let us go back to point one and remember the fate of the poor, averege man. To prison with the averege should mean to prison for rich attourneys as well, to this we shall concede. However...
If we are in fact throwing away the key on Mr. Libby and Mr. Bush decides to pardon him, where are we left then? Yes, cries of "cronnieism" could not be scoffed at, for such a move would bolster such attacks, but here is another question to ponder - are we then ready to also condemn and also use our "cronnieism" mantra towards Mr. William Jefferson Clinton who while leaving office pardoned some of the most offensive individuals within the prison system himself? Drugs Lords, Drug Runners, Tax Cheats, and listen - The Correct View is not saying that the drug laws are not too strict or that the IRS is honest - NEVER! Rather, The Correct View is asking why were not very many Democrats were up in arms with Mr. Libby when he along with Mr. Clinton was part of a deal to pardon Marc Rich, a deal that went down with a handshake, a wink, and a crisp $100,000 bill?
Here is The Correct View: what one administration is ok with, future administrations will be ok with. Ford pardoned Nixon in a move that many still question. Ever since then Reagan, Bush Sr, and Bill Clinton have made some rather questionable moves in terms of who they chose to pardon. After such a deal, the kingdom (and with all this Bush and Clinton talk, and with Mrs. Clinton looming at the White House door like a horrible gargoyle from a Vincient Price movie is what we have - A KINGDOM) always reeks of money, brandy, and yes, cronnieism. What is needed is not a decision to pardon Scooter Libby, but a decision to not allow every administration to worsen the office that they leave behind by uppeing the ante with every possible move.
Thursday, March 8, 2007
Introduction To: The Correct Views
Greetings One and All,
I bid thee welcome my new blog, The Correct Views. My name is Samuel E. Di Gangi, and most people know me from my music (Bobby and The Men, Jaws of Victory, and currently Passing Time) with various bands and from live stand in's at various clubs, colleges, andyes - I also own Sam R I Web Design, Writing, Graphics, and Music Services. I have a degree in Graphic Design and a degree soon in Web Design and Music Theory, MIDI, and Production.
Those who know my work also know that I have ALWAYS been political. My music, my art, and my speech have always danced about with declarations of what I have come to know as The Correct Views.
The blogs posted here will not be music related to the degree that they will be political. I have and will still write a plethora of music related material, but little of it will be posted here UNLESS it is somehow political as well. Now, rather than introduce myself further, I shall let myself simply post a blog outlining my view of the main political parties in this country at this time. If I get a ready, strong response to these blogs, I shall post them with great frequency. If I get a slow, tired response, this may be one of the only posts I give.
Now let me begin, and thank you for reading....
REPUBLICANS: The war in Afghanastan was needed. It is obvious to the strongest of degrees that George Bush Sr. had no business trying to beat Bill Clinton to the pink flag so quickly that he left the war and job undone in Gulf War One. He needed to rid Saddam when he had the whole world on our side and he chose to race instead.
Likewise, Bill Clinton allowed not one attack, but TWO ATTACKS upon the US (World Trade Center attack one and The SS Cole) and did nothing to defend the country. What other president in American History would have allowed that? This empowered the mouse to emerge from it's hole and it hurt the United States.
Iraq....The Correct View is a bit more complicated in this regard, but here it is. Saddam allowed Al Zaquari safe haven in Iraq, and Al Zarquari was the sworn enemy of the US. He planned attacks upon the USA and he did so from Iraq. However, while the correct view is that Saddam needed to be removed for this (should have long been removed), George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld have done a dreadful, mind blowingly bad job of it! As someone who supported Bush over Kerry (Bush was honest about his ideas that we all hated, Kerry lied about everthing...what a choice, no?), it can not be overstated that Geroge Bush may just have made the most dreadful decision to go into this war with Donald Rumsfeld.
Ruddy offers some hope, he is pretty much a JFK liberal and that is not all bad. There is a concern here about his strong arm tactics in NYC that did clean up that city well, but if attempted nationally it could lead to police strong arming your teenager with a joint in their pocket to a degree that ruins their life forever with mandatory minimums. I do fear he would be that strict, and other than that, he seems to be a decent enough option, though not perect.
McCain would sink the party. His "if I gave $50 an hour to anyone in this room to pick lettuce" comment was rooted firmly on nothing , andyet he still managed to hang himself from it. He would be a travisty.
Mitt who? He needs to run to get his name out, but never. Maybe next time.
DEMOCRATS: When did someone decide that todays liberals were....um...liberal? This is the new party spread from the censorship left of the late 80's (remember The PMRC were so strict as to ban a wet t-shirt on the Bon Jovi CD "Slippery When Wet" as obscene. Bon Jovi....obscene???) lead by Tipper Gore...aka Mrs. Al Gore. This is the roots of this party right now. The want to ban guns, cars, energy....everything the country runs on.
Hillary is a tax maniac and this glossing over of what her and her husband did is nauseating, and I am not speaking of the sex act.
It was Bill Clinton who allowed nuclear tade secrets to leak to the countries that now want to show us how well they all work, just to say thanks and all. He should have faced a hangman's noose for that act. Millions of people may perish due to that one act, so no: no Clintons.
Ubama. He is new, fresh faced, and while he has perhaps an election to run before he may win, he is showing strong with Democrats (39% up from 34% last year) who would "never vote for Mrs. Clinton." He seems strong on a lot of issues, and if he chooses to be himself and not act black or act white, he will show strong in the polls not only amoung African Americans, but also among the "Colin Powell" right as well.
Lastly....GIVE UP THE GLOBAL WARMING LIE! For one, the science is NOT in, and while it is obvious that world is warming up, many (myself thus far included) does NOT find any evidence that man is causing increase in tempature. This seems to be an attempt upon the far left to levy a new tax (perhaps global) on everything that uses any energy. Now, if they were to say "we need to limit the amount of toxins in our air" and not fingered the SUV as a problem (which it is NOT at all in terms of warming), then perhaps it would or will work for them. People know a lie when they see it, this WILL COST YOU THE ELECTION no matter how many times Al Gore shines his trophy. As a health risk (lung cancer for instance) people will perhaps limit and work with "The Establishment", but if taxed or lied to about global warming....well - say hello to President Ruddy.
LIBERTARIAN: What has happened to my party? As God alive see's, so proud was I to be a Libertarian! Now what do you believe? Well, Mr Badnarick as his platform desired to pull all troops from Iraq in 6 months if he were to elected President. Even if oneare hates the war, even if one has hated the war from the first time a talking head told of it, one has to see that this would be a bloodbath. It does not matter if one feels that Bush made the worst blunder in recorded history even, one must also see that a pull out like that would kill thousands. That has to be one of the worst ideas in recorded history right there.
And health care. This is where The Correct View and the Libertarian Party part company. The correct view is that while the private sector does 99.9% of things better than any government can do, it is true that greed kills. The market can price the cheese, for if it goes up too high the sales stop. This does NOT work for healthcare because one can not choose to NOT be sick if it is so ordained. Cancer comes no matter how much money you have or do not have.
A sick society, an ill society is not a safe nor productive society. Sick people equeal a sick nation at some point. A sick populace can breed an epidemic as well, and this can stop and econmy cold (think SARS). The government must insure the populace so that big business does not stifle the health of the nation. The government must oversee very few things, but again The Correct View states clearly that the health of the nation does fall under "Protecting the nation" as outlined in the Constitution.
Now that you have seen my views, I hope to hear from you, the reader.
I bid thee welcome my new blog, The Correct Views. My name is Samuel E. Di Gangi, and most people know me from my music (Bobby and The Men, Jaws of Victory, and currently Passing Time) with various bands and from live stand in's at various clubs, colleges, andyes - I also own Sam R I Web Design, Writing, Graphics, and Music Services. I have a degree in Graphic Design and a degree soon in Web Design and Music Theory, MIDI, and Production.
Those who know my work also know that I have ALWAYS been political. My music, my art, and my speech have always danced about with declarations of what I have come to know as The Correct Views.
The blogs posted here will not be music related to the degree that they will be political. I have and will still write a plethora of music related material, but little of it will be posted here UNLESS it is somehow political as well. Now, rather than introduce myself further, I shall let myself simply post a blog outlining my view of the main political parties in this country at this time. If I get a ready, strong response to these blogs, I shall post them with great frequency. If I get a slow, tired response, this may be one of the only posts I give.
Now let me begin, and thank you for reading....
REPUBLICANS: The war in Afghanastan was needed. It is obvious to the strongest of degrees that George Bush Sr. had no business trying to beat Bill Clinton to the pink flag so quickly that he left the war and job undone in Gulf War One. He needed to rid Saddam when he had the whole world on our side and he chose to race instead.
Likewise, Bill Clinton allowed not one attack, but TWO ATTACKS upon the US (World Trade Center attack one and The SS Cole) and did nothing to defend the country. What other president in American History would have allowed that? This empowered the mouse to emerge from it's hole and it hurt the United States.
Iraq....The Correct View is a bit more complicated in this regard, but here it is. Saddam allowed Al Zaquari safe haven in Iraq, and Al Zarquari was the sworn enemy of the US. He planned attacks upon the USA and he did so from Iraq. However, while the correct view is that Saddam needed to be removed for this (should have long been removed), George Bush and Donald Rumsfeld have done a dreadful, mind blowingly bad job of it! As someone who supported Bush over Kerry (Bush was honest about his ideas that we all hated, Kerry lied about everthing...what a choice, no?), it can not be overstated that Geroge Bush may just have made the most dreadful decision to go into this war with Donald Rumsfeld.
Ruddy offers some hope, he is pretty much a JFK liberal and that is not all bad. There is a concern here about his strong arm tactics in NYC that did clean up that city well, but if attempted nationally it could lead to police strong arming your teenager with a joint in their pocket to a degree that ruins their life forever with mandatory minimums. I do fear he would be that strict, and other than that, he seems to be a decent enough option, though not perect.
McCain would sink the party. His "if I gave $50 an hour to anyone in this room to pick lettuce" comment was rooted firmly on nothing , andyet he still managed to hang himself from it. He would be a travisty.
Mitt who? He needs to run to get his name out, but never. Maybe next time.
DEMOCRATS: When did someone decide that todays liberals were....um...liberal? This is the new party spread from the censorship left of the late 80's (remember The PMRC were so strict as to ban a wet t-shirt on the Bon Jovi CD "Slippery When Wet" as obscene. Bon Jovi....obscene???) lead by Tipper Gore...aka Mrs. Al Gore. This is the roots of this party right now. The want to ban guns, cars, energy....everything the country runs on.
Hillary is a tax maniac and this glossing over of what her and her husband did is nauseating, and I am not speaking of the sex act.
It was Bill Clinton who allowed nuclear tade secrets to leak to the countries that now want to show us how well they all work, just to say thanks and all. He should have faced a hangman's noose for that act. Millions of people may perish due to that one act, so no: no Clintons.
Ubama. He is new, fresh faced, and while he has perhaps an election to run before he may win, he is showing strong with Democrats (39% up from 34% last year) who would "never vote for Mrs. Clinton." He seems strong on a lot of issues, and if he chooses to be himself and not act black or act white, he will show strong in the polls not only amoung African Americans, but also among the "Colin Powell" right as well.
Lastly....GIVE UP THE GLOBAL WARMING LIE! For one, the science is NOT in, and while it is obvious that world is warming up, many (myself thus far included) does NOT find any evidence that man is causing increase in tempature. This seems to be an attempt upon the far left to levy a new tax (perhaps global) on everything that uses any energy. Now, if they were to say "we need to limit the amount of toxins in our air" and not fingered the SUV as a problem (which it is NOT at all in terms of warming), then perhaps it would or will work for them. People know a lie when they see it, this WILL COST YOU THE ELECTION no matter how many times Al Gore shines his trophy. As a health risk (lung cancer for instance) people will perhaps limit and work with "The Establishment", but if taxed or lied to about global warming....well - say hello to President Ruddy.
LIBERTARIAN: What has happened to my party? As God alive see's, so proud was I to be a Libertarian! Now what do you believe? Well, Mr Badnarick as his platform desired to pull all troops from Iraq in 6 months if he were to elected President. Even if oneare hates the war, even if one has hated the war from the first time a talking head told of it, one has to see that this would be a bloodbath. It does not matter if one feels that Bush made the worst blunder in recorded history even, one must also see that a pull out like that would kill thousands. That has to be one of the worst ideas in recorded history right there.
And health care. This is where The Correct View and the Libertarian Party part company. The correct view is that while the private sector does 99.9% of things better than any government can do, it is true that greed kills. The market can price the cheese, for if it goes up too high the sales stop. This does NOT work for healthcare because one can not choose to NOT be sick if it is so ordained. Cancer comes no matter how much money you have or do not have.
A sick society, an ill society is not a safe nor productive society. Sick people equeal a sick nation at some point. A sick populace can breed an epidemic as well, and this can stop and econmy cold (think SARS). The government must insure the populace so that big business does not stifle the health of the nation. The government must oversee very few things, but again The Correct View states clearly that the health of the nation does fall under "Protecting the nation" as outlined in the Constitution.
Now that you have seen my views, I hope to hear from you, the reader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)